No announcement yet.

Why the .uasset textures are so big compared to the origianl .jpg textures?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    TGA is better tho


      Raildex_ , but I care about project file size, PNG is already 5 times bigger than JPGs in average, then it should be more than that for TGA. But I don't understand why the project "Open World Demo Collection" uses TGA.

      In my old / new project:
      - There are (5 rgb + 3 alpha) group of JPG textures, the total size is 2.19 MB, and the linked .uasset files total size is 11.4 MB.
      - There are (5 rgba) group of PNG textures same as above, the total size 11.1 MB, and the linked .uasset files total size is 14.6 MB.
      - Then it should be bigger for TGA.

      See I still can know the size of the JPGs even if don't use it anymore, that's because I use backups, I really like backups for many perspectives.

      Quote from google: tga vs png
      Originally posted by Google
      PNGs and TGAs are lossless - there are no compression artefacts from either format. TGA is uncompressed (larger files), where PNG is compressed (smaller files).
      Last edited by mandaxyz; 05-18-2019, 01:54 PM.


        Some applications do weird things with transparency/alpha channels with the PNG file format, such as deleting RGB data where the alpha channel says it's completely transparent. That's awful when you are using the alpha channel for something besides transparency. I don't particularly like how Photoshop handles PNG. Also there's some weirdness around how 16 bit PNG images are handled as well.

        I'd simply prefer not to work with PNG due to those inconsistencies causing more headaches than the disk space saving is worth. Most artists I know stick pretty much exclusively to TGA as their main working format. I don't mind PNG for alphaless textures though.

        There also seems to be part of artist communities that view JPG as unprofessional for anything but photographs and websites. That lossy compression is never acceptable.
        Last edited by ZacD; 05-19-2019, 09:07 AM.


          ZacD, Maybe old Photoshop deletes information where area is 100% transparent? But it's not the case for me, I use Photoshop CC 2018.
          Can anyone explain how did you do to occur the famous problem on destroyed area where transparency is 100% with PNG? I cannot believe because it doesn't happen to me, are you using Photoshop CC 2018?

          Let me prove that the problem doesn't happen to me on this "Untitled-1.png", there is no deleted information on the area where alpha is 0, I use Photoshop CC 2018 and Maya's FCheck to check the image, ... I prefer using Blender for professional modeling because I love it 5 times than Maya.
          Click image for larger version  Name:	RGBA.jpg Views:	1 Size:	18.0 KB ID:	1621688Click image for larger version  Name:	RGB--A.jpg Views:	1 Size:	68.0 KB ID:	1621689

          Edit: The famous problem happens when I use the Eraser Tool in Photoshop, but I never use that tool, I always use Layer Mask since the beginning even if I didn't knew the problem yet. That's how the problem never happen to me. I can even apply the Layer Mask, then no problem happen. ... So my suggestion is never never use the Eraser Tool. Anyway, who will use Eraser Tool when the Alpha Channel is the roughness or thickness or something like that because it's not a transparent.

          Does anyone else has another idea on why you prefer TGA instead of PNG? Because the problem never happen to me. Please explain because the problem is so famous, all the artists use TGA.

          I spent my time on saving all the textures into PNGs, and TGAs are sooo biiiiig, I don't use it yet, people say that an example on a texture that TGA is 8 MB, PNG is 2.5 MB. ... For that example, TGA is 3 times bigger than PNG or 15 times bigger than JPG.
          Last edited by mandaxyz; 05-20-2019, 05:08 AM.


            Personally I stick to using TGA for anything with Alpha Channels, and PNG for anything without.

            Some programs are terrible at the way they store PNG since they are all optimized to create the smallest file size. It's often destructive and I'd rather lose a few extra MB's of hard drive space than irreplaceable work. Hard drives are cheap nowadays

            It needs to be said, but JPG is a horrendous format by the way.


              TheJamsh, thanks for explaining. TGA is 0% compression, I'm a developer then I know that its format is a binary like this: RGB(255, 128, 0) = 0xFF8000, and the TGA file is stored exactly like that, there is no compression, that's why it's sooooooo biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig, and saying "TGA is better" is same as saying "BMP is better" because TGA is a BMP with alpha version.

              So my conclusion is we are living in an imperfect world, many programs are terrible when store PNG, and it seems forever, there will never be a PNG2 because everything depends on the programs. TGA is 0% compression as I explained before, that's why it never occur a problem on alpha. ... It's so sad to know that the world is imperfect.

              My laptop's hard drive is 1 TB, but I have to split it into 2 partitions (C: 300 GB and D: 700 GB) and 700 GB is small. And the worst thing is I have three 500 GB external hard drives, each one is smaller than 700 GB that I backup into the external hard drives.
              Last edited by mandaxyz; 05-20-2019, 07:40 AM.


                Thank for the solutions given by everybody.

                advertising agency in Bangalore | SEO services in Bangalore